COVID-19 on YouTube: Debates and polarisation in the digital sphere

Luengo, Oscar, García-Marín, Javier and de-Blasio, Emiliana COVID-19 on YouTube: Debates and polarisation in the digital sphere. Comunicar, 2021, vol. 29, n. 69, pp. 9-19. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of Research article (English)]
Preview
 Text (Research article (English))
c6901en.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (1MB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Research article (Español)]
Preview
 Text (Research article (Español))
c6901es.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (1MB) | Preview

English abstract

Social media has significantly transformed how political discussions and deliberations occur, mainly by providing a digital realm for the public sphere. This study aims to analyse the extent of polarised opinions across Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom regarding COVID-19 during 2020 within social media. To do this, we examined YouTube comments (n=111,808) using automatic analysis and machine-learning techniques based on algorithms. This methodological strategy denoted an innovative and unique quantitative approach for this field of study. In line with previous research, the hypothesis was that the degree of polarization does not crystallize in the same manner in different countries’ digital spheres. Therefore, it could be said that higher levels of polarization occur amongst Southern European countries like Spain and Italy (both countries adhering to a polarised pluralism model), compared to other countries ascribing to the liberal model (the United Kingdom in our study), which provides evidence supporting previous research studies. The results confirmed the hypothesis that the polarization of digital deliberation between Spain and Italy is higher than in the United Kingdom. But, also, the findings based on more disaggregated analysis suggest that the most polarized attitudes are even rewarded by other users in Mediterranean countries.

Spanish abstract

Las redes sociales han transformado de forma muy significativa la forma en la que se produce el diálogo político, impulsando una configuración digital de la esfera pública. El presente artículo tiene como objetivo el análisis de la deliberación producida en las redes sociales, con un especial énfasis en la polarización. Tomando como referencia los comentarios observados en YouTube sobre la COVID-19 durante 2020 en España, Italia y Reino Unido, lo cual arroja una muestra de 111.808 comentarios, se aplicaron una serie de técnicas automáticas de análisis basadas en algoritmos, lo que supone una metodología cuantitativa novedosa en este ámbito de estudio. En línea con lo señalado por trabajos previos, la hipótesis que se plantea en este artículo es que el grado de polarización no se da con la misma intensidad en las esferas digitales de distintos casos. De esta manera, cabe esperar unos mayores registros de polarización en la esfera digital de los países del sur de Europa, adscritos a un modelo de pluralismo polarizado, que en países de otros modelos como el liberal. Los resultados confirman la hipótesis, verificando que no solo se observa mayor polarización en España e Italia que en Reino Unido, sino que, a nivel desagregado, los hallazgos apuntan a que la actividad más polarizante obtiene mayor aprobación en los países mediterráneos de nuestra muestra.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Public sphere; YouTube; cyberpolitics; deep learning; polarisation; COVID-19; Esfera pública; YouTube; ciberpolítica; aprendizaje profundo; polarización; COVID-19
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BJ. Communication
G. Industry, profession and education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Alex Ruiz
Date deposited: 21 Dec 2021 12:00
Last modified: 21 Dec 2021 12:00
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/42708

References

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-36. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23089

Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and environmental communication via online video: Strategically distorted communications on climate change and climate engineering on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 4(36), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036

Arias-Maldonado, M. (2016). La digitalización de la conversación pública: Redes sociales, afectividad política y democracia. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 173, 27-54. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.173.01

Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160

Berry, C., Kim, S., & Spigel, L. (2010). Electronic elsewheres: Media technology and the experience of social space. University of Minnesota Press. https://bit.ly/33AbcKO

Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235370

Blumler, J. (2018). The Crisis of Public Communication 1995-2017. Javnost – The Public, 25(1-2), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418799

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612-10617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706588114

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26669

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia second life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang.

Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. In N. Nicolov & J.G. Shanahan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 89-96). The AAAI Press. https://bit.ly/3bxioeB

Dahlberg, L. (2004). The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized conditions of democratic communication. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 10, 2-18. https://bit.ly/2Nr1BBU

Davis, A. (2019). Political communication: A new introduction for crisis times. Polity. https://bit.ly/3o85j17

Demsar, J., Curk, T., Erjavec, A., Gorup, C., Hocevar, T., Milutinovic, M., Mozina, M., Polajnar, M., Toplak, M., Staric, A., Stajdohar, M., Umek, L., Zagar, L., Zbontar, J., Zitnik, M., & Zupan, B. (2013). Orange: Data mining toolbox. Python. The Journal of machine Learning research, 14(1), 2349-2353. https://bit.ly/3pMIPBR

Dougan, M., & Smith, A. (2016). The political environment on social media. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/2NyZWdh

Druckman, J.N., & Levendusky, M.S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003

Fleig, A., & von-Scheve, C. (2020). Introduction: Public spheres of resonance – Constellations of affect and language. In A. Fleig, & C. von-Scheve (Eds.), Public spheres of resonance. Constellations of affect and language (pp. 1-16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429466533-1

Fletcher, R., & Jenkins, J. (2019). Polarisation and the news media in Europe. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://bit.ly/2ZKKpcQ

Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R.K. (2020). How polarized are online and offline news audiences? A comparative analysis of twelve countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 169-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219892768

Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media. A critical introduction. Sage. https://bit.ly/3tDtDsD

Fung, A., Gilman, H.G., & Shkabatur, J. (2013). Six models for the Internet and politics. International Studies Review, 15(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12028

García-Marín, J., & Calatrava, A. (2018). The use of supervised learning algorithms in political communication and media studies: Locating frames in the press. Comunicación & Sociedad, 31(3), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.175-188

Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2019). How ideology, economics and institutions shape affective polarization in democratic polities. [Conference]. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, United States. https://bit.ly/3aJkmJx

Gozálvez-Pérez, V. (2011). Education for democratic citizenship in a digital culture. [Educacio?n para la ciudadani?a democra?tica en la cultura digital]. Comunicar, 36, 131-138. https://doi.org/10.3916/c36-2011-03-04

Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI354

Hallin, D., & Mancini, H. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S.J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2019). Brevity is the soul of Twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 69(4), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3287552

Lee, J.K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077

Letsche, T.A., & Berry, M.W. (1997). Large-scale information retrieval with latent semantic indexing. Information sciences, 100(1-4), 105-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(97)00044-3

López-García, G. (2005). Modelos de comunicación en Internet. Tirant Lo Blanch.

Margetts, H. (2009). Public management change and e-government: The emergence of digital-era governance. In A. Chadwick, & P.N. Howard (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 119-131). Routledge. https://bit.ly/3bkxQeI

Mason, L. (2014). ‘I disrespectfully agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089

Meyer, D., Hornik, K., & Feinerer, I. (2008). Text mining infrastructure. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5), 1-54. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05

Morlino, L., & Sorice, M. (2021). Quello che abbiamo appreso. In Idd. L’illusione della scelta. Come si manipola l’opinione pubblica in Italia. Luiss University Press.

Olsson, E.J. (2013). A Bayesian simulation model of group deliberation and polarization. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 113-133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0_6

Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20, 3400-3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446431164

Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How Media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139878425

Reese, S., Rutigliano, L., Hyun, K., & Jeong, J. (2007). Mapping the blogosphere: Professional and citizen-based media in the global news arena. Journalism, 8(3), 235-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907076459

Rowe, I. (2014). Incivility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365

Rubio, R. (2000). Internet en la participación política. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 19, 285-302. https://bit.ly/3unSTVv

Scheufele, D.A. (2001). Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In R.P. Hart, & D. Shaw (Eds.), Communication and U.S. elections: New agendas (pp. 19-32). Rowman and Littlefield.

Schlesinger, P. (2020). After the post-public sphere. Media Culture and Society, 42(7-8), 1545-1563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720948003

Serrano-Contreras, I., García-Marín, J., & Luengo, O.G. (2020). Measuring online political dialogue: Does polarization trigger more deliberation? Media and Communication, 8(4), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3149

Sorice, M. (2020). La ‘piattaformizzazione’ della sfera pubblica. Comunicazione Politica, 3, 371-388. https://doi.org/10.3270/98799

Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446

Stromer-Galley, J., & Wichowski, A. (2011). Political discussion online. In M.C. Ess (Ed.), The handbook of Internet studies (pp. 168-187). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444314861.ch8

Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press. https://bit.ly/3vZ7R4b

Sunstein, C.R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhtd

Valera-Orgaz, L. (2017). Comparing the democratic value of Facebook discussions across the profiles of Spanish political candidates during the 2011 General Election. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 75(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2017.75.1.15.119

van-Dijck, J., de-Waal, M., & Poell, T. (2018). The platform society public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001

Volkmer, I. (2014). The global public sphere: Public communication in the age of reflective interdependence. Polity.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS